Fact or fiction: An experiment on how information sources and message framing influence vaccine risk perception

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Daniel Catalán-Matamoros, Enrique Prada, Andrea Langbecker
{"title":"Fact or fiction: An experiment on how information sources and message framing influence vaccine risk perception","authors":"Daniel Catalán-Matamoros, Enrique Prada, Andrea Langbecker","doi":"10.3145/epi.2023.sep.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In view of the growing disinformation about vaccines on social media since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, effective communication strategies encouraging vaccine uptake are needed. We conducted an experiment through an online, preregistered survey to explore which types of information sources are more trusted by the population regarding the risks of the Covid-19 booster, and which types of message frames are more effective in influencing the perception of risks for children. We surveyed a representative sample composed of 1,800 Spaniards in June 2022. The two dependent variables were respondents’ perceptions of (1) the Covid-19 booster vaccine effectiveness and (2) the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine for children. Participants were randomly exposed to different messaging regarding these vaccines, with different sources of information (scientific consensus, scientific dissensus, governmental, influencers and medical doctors), and different message framing (pro- and anti-vaccine storytelling and pro- and anti-vaccine scientific data). Additionally, some respondents who did not receive any messaging formed a control group. Our findings suggest that different information sources and frames can influence people’s risk perception of vaccines. The source ‘medical doctors’ had a positive effect on risk perception of the Covid-19 booster vaccine (p < 0.05), and pro-vaccine messages, in the form of both storytelling and scientific expository frames, had a positive effect on respondents’ risk perception of the vaccine for children (p < 0.1 and p < 0.05, respectively). On the one hand, male and older respondents rated booster vaccines as more effective than female and younger respondents. On the other hand, right-wing respondents believed vaccines are somewhat less safe for children than left-wing respondents. These findings might support the development of strategic communication in vaccination programmes by public health departments to improve immunization rates in the general population. The practical and theoretical implications are discussed.","PeriodicalId":20684,"journal":{"name":"Profesional De La Informacion","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Profesional De La Informacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.sep.10","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In view of the growing disinformation about vaccines on social media since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, effective communication strategies encouraging vaccine uptake are needed. We conducted an experiment through an online, preregistered survey to explore which types of information sources are more trusted by the population regarding the risks of the Covid-19 booster, and which types of message frames are more effective in influencing the perception of risks for children. We surveyed a representative sample composed of 1,800 Spaniards in June 2022. The two dependent variables were respondents’ perceptions of (1) the Covid-19 booster vaccine effectiveness and (2) the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine for children. Participants were randomly exposed to different messaging regarding these vaccines, with different sources of information (scientific consensus, scientific dissensus, governmental, influencers and medical doctors), and different message framing (pro- and anti-vaccine storytelling and pro- and anti-vaccine scientific data). Additionally, some respondents who did not receive any messaging formed a control group. Our findings suggest that different information sources and frames can influence people’s risk perception of vaccines. The source ‘medical doctors’ had a positive effect on risk perception of the Covid-19 booster vaccine (p < 0.05), and pro-vaccine messages, in the form of both storytelling and scientific expository frames, had a positive effect on respondents’ risk perception of the vaccine for children (p < 0.1 and p < 0.05, respectively). On the one hand, male and older respondents rated booster vaccines as more effective than female and younger respondents. On the other hand, right-wing respondents believed vaccines are somewhat less safe for children than left-wing respondents. These findings might support the development of strategic communication in vaccination programmes by public health departments to improve immunization rates in the general population. The practical and theoretical implications are discussed.
事实或虚构:关于信息来源和信息框架如何影响疫苗风险认知的实验
鉴于自2019冠状病毒病大流行开始以来,社交媒体上关于疫苗的虚假信息日益增多,需要采取有效的宣传战略,鼓励接种疫苗。我们通过一项预先登记的在线调查进行了一项实验,以探索人们更信任哪种类型的信息来源,以及哪种类型的信息框架更有效地影响儿童对风险的认知。我们在2022年6月对1800名西班牙人的代表性样本进行了调查。这两个因变量是受访者对(1)Covid-19加强疫苗有效性和(2)儿童Covid-19疫苗安全性的看法。参与者随机接触到关于这些疫苗的不同信息,有不同的信息来源(科学共识、科学异议、政府、影响者和医生),以及不同的信息框架(支持和反对疫苗的故事叙述以及支持和反对疫苗的科学数据)。此外,一些没有收到任何消息的受访者组成了一个对照组。我们的研究结果表明,不同的信息来源和框架可以影响人们对疫苗的风险认知。来源“医生”对Covid-19加强疫苗的风险认知有积极影响(p <0.05),支持接种疫苗的信息,以讲故事和科学说明性框架的形式,对受访者对儿童疫苗的风险认知有积极影响(p <0.1和p <分别为0.05)。一方面,男性和老年答复者认为加强疫苗比女性和年轻答复者更有效。另一方面,右翼受访者认为疫苗对儿童的安全性略低于左翼受访者。这些发现可能支持公共卫生部门在疫苗接种计划中发展战略沟通,以提高普通人群的免疫率。讨论了其实际意义和理论意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: El profesional de la información es una revista sobre información, bibliotecas y nuevas tecnologías de la información. Primera revista española de Biblioteconomía y Documentación indexada por las dos bases de datos bibliográficas internacionales más importantes: ISI Social Science Citation Index y Scopus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信